I'm also not sure how it came about that I'm against the so-called "negative side" animal research. I'm not, and I think that (at least, for the time being) it is completely necessary. That doesn't change the fact that I think it can be difficult to deal with, especially when working with NHP's.
...this is not a unique protocol. Literally any animal in a neurophysiology study will undergo a similar type of perfusion if the brain is to be studied afterward (histology, etc.)
Sadly, nowhere in this thread have you given any positive view towards any of the 'good' things mentioned nor towards what you yourself claim to be doing (with the exception of stating that you think your monkeys live a decent life). For instance rather than be happy to hear that nyanko was able to adopt three research utilized felines you opted to jump on her by stating that this is not the typical outcome. As a member of the lab animal community, it is a responsibility of yours to see these types of success stories as a victory. No, it may not be the norm, but it is a wonderful thing that everyone in biomedical should strive for if at all possible. No, it will not always be the case that an animal can be saved and successfully find new life outside of the lab. However, it is not the case that every animal requires euthanasia either. For instance, let me provide you with how your thought that any animal in a neurophysiology study would require euthanasia in order to complete a project is untrue...
Head caps are, in many cases, removeable. If the animal was utilized for a project such as single cell recording or for the testing of certain equipment, and no compounds were injected and no complications were seen, the animal is considered healthy. In some of these cases investigators only seek that they are entering the correct brain regions - something that is easily obtained through imaging once the cap is in place. In these cases, following the study, the cap may be removed and repair of the skull and scalp may be made through plastic surgical procedures. These animals may then be placed onto non-invasive protocols (rats, cats and NHPs), released for adoption (rats and cats) or taken in by sanctuaries (cats and NHPs).
Also, as much as applaud you for wanting to educate the public on what happens in research settings, I would like to suggest that you find a better method of disclosure. I must be honest in saying that if I were your PI, I would be quite unhappy to see you fully disclosing in regard to entering the chest and perfusing the brain. It's illustrations such as this that give the public a bad view of biomedical research. It wasn't necessary for you to state what you do in such a graphic nature. John Q Public may not even know what the left ventricle is. All they see is 'enter the chest' 'brain' 'formaldehyde'. You could have easily stated what you did by stating that you manged a large NHP colony where you are performing awake single cell recordings (or whatever you may be placing electrodes for) and then at the end 'harvest the tissue for histology' in order to confirm proper study performance. Your way of explaining the project leads me to believe that you are currently fully focused on only the negative factors in your work rather than the good it may be doing. After all, without studies such as these, there would be no DBS for Parkinson's disease patients.
I understand that work like this can be emotionally draining for a great many people. However, given the size of the colony you state and the amount of work you claim, I can only assume that (if you are who you say you are) that you are at a major research institution where it would be required for you to undergo training on how to speak about your position, how to deal with the public and what you should and should not disclose in regard to the procedures you are doing. You should be well aware of what can happen at these places if information such as what you've disclosed falls into incorrect hands.
I'm not saying you should turn a blind eye to things or stop talking about what you do. However, if you are not completely comfortable with all the aspects of what you do, you really should take some stock and think about your future. If you do chose to go into lab animal medicine, you're going to need to look at animals in their cages and it will be your job to assess these types of studies and assist research staff with their work. It will also be your responsibility to ensure that all studies are carried out with the least amount of invasiveness possible to obtain the hypothesized results. However, sadly, if the protocol is justified for a class 4 study it means a class 4 study will be performed. If only after two years your finding yourself emotionally taxed, think about how things will be after a decade of having to oversee more than just one study. The work isn't for everyone...
) have better elucidated his background and views and actually made some point. 
). Then again, one must consider the fact the exact number of animals used in biomedical research is unknown. This is particularly true since government statistics do not include mice, rats, birds, and fish, which can range from tens to hundreds of millions. There might not ever be a way to successfully attain valuable statistical data to make such (ahem) erroneous claims. I used such a high value to emphasize a point; there are far greater euthanizations than adoptions of research animals. I hope this is something we can all agree on. So, 99.99% too high? Sure. But could it be agreed upon the majority to be somewhere above 90%? Maybe. Ok, then how low do you want to go? At the end of the day I'm sure the value truly depends on who you ask (especially frequent forum users). It also appears each and every one of our own subjective interpretations of research stems from our unique experiences, and therefore no wrong or right, or any simple yea or nay answer exists. As we have just seen, these are highly sensitive topics backed by strong opinions. With that said, can we just talk politics instead?
